More on reperations

[YogsVR4]

Originally Posted by T4 Primera

Secondly, a corporation is an entity that is not limited in lifespan. So don't go off half-cocked about descendants not being responsible for the crimes of their ancestors. Just because the shareholders in a corporation die off and are replaced doesn't mean that the corporation gets the slate wiped clean with each passing generation.

While a company can be held accountable for wrong doings. There are two important points. What is the statute of limitations and what law did they break? Slave trading is atrocious, but at the time it was not illegal.

Hold them accountable under any laws that were in effect at the time for countries they were operating in.

[T4 Primera]

Originally Posted by TexasF355F1

Corporations allegedly involved? Ummmm....one problem with that. Slavery was in the 1800's and some before. There were no corporations during the time of slavery.

From the book in the link I posted earlier, on page 33:

TABLE 2.1

Formation of British Trading Companies

HOUSE OF TUDOR

Henry VII 1485−1509
Merchant Adventurers (1505)

Henry VIII 1530−1547

Edward VI 1547−1553

Mary Tudor 1553−1558
Russia Company (1553)

Elizabeth 1558−1603
Spanish Company (1577)
Eastland Company (1579)
Turkey Company (1581)
Morocco Company (1588)
East India Company (1600)

HOUSE OF STUART

James I 1603−1625 Virginia Company (1606)
French Company (1609)

Charles I 1625−1649
Commonwealth and Protectorate 1649−1660

Charles II 1660−1685
Hudson’s Bay Company (1670)
Royal African Company (1672)

James II 1685−1688

William III and Mary II 1689−1702
Greenland Company (1693)

Anne 1702−1714
South Sea Company (1711)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
...and that's only some of the British ones.....

.....and from page 59:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
How the framers of the American system restrained corporate
power (1787–1850)

"I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied
corporations which dare already to challenge our government
to a trial of strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country."

Thomas Jefferson, 1816
----------------------------------------------------------------------
More people need to read this book! Go on - it's free!
http://www.gangsofamerica.com/gangsofamerica.pdf

[T4 Primera]

Originally Posted by YogsVR4

While a company can be held accountable for wrong doings. There are two important points. What is the statute of limitations and what law did they break? Slave trading is atrocious, but at the time it was not illegal.

Hold them accountable under any laws that were in effect at the time for countries they were operating in.

Those are good questions, and that is why they are going to court in search of the answers. Your post certainly holds more possiblity than the off-handed "get over it" opinions of many.

For some, not all, I translate this "get over it" attitude into a euphemism for "I don't really care enough about this particular subject to expend the time and energy required to have an informed opinion". Hence they resort to such tactics as oversimplifying things, paraphrasing the situation into a more familiar or provoking frame of reference or just plain guessing stuff and asserting it as fact.

What the court actually finds, and whether it can be effectively enforced is only part of the story. Regardless of the outcome, the case will go some way to increasing awareness of corporate power and democracy struggles - which is the aim of a larger worldwide movement.

The larger movement includes, but is not restricted to, the protests on GATT, WTO, IMF/World Bank, third world debt, sweatshop and child labour practices, environmental disasters like the Exxon Valdez, health and safety standards, minimum wage standards etc. Similar movements in the past have failed because of narrowly targeted focus. What makes the movement today different is that they are taking a leaf from the corporate book and planting many seeds to chip away at corporate power rather than trying meet it head on.

[2strokebloke]

secondly, a corporation is an entity that is not limited in lifespan. So don't go off half-cocked about descendants not being responsible for the crimes of their ancestors.

I disagree. If my great grandmother's murderer was never brought to justice, should I be able to sue his (the murderers) descendants because of this?
Should Jews sue today's current VW, for being deeply involved with the Nazis more than six decades ago? No, that's rediculous.
So what makes it fair to punish people for something they were not involved in?
I can see from the standpoint that the company profited off of something that is wrong, but at the same time, when they made these profits, it wasn't illegal, by the law they weren't doing anything wrong.
Hell, if we could sue people for violating laws that didn't exist when they commited those crimes, everybody would be a millionaire. So yes, I'm going to take the get over stance. Everybody wants to be a millionaire. Life isn't fair, get over it. I find it saddening, that these people's ancestors had been exploited during their lifetimes, but now well over a century after being dead, people are still finding ways to wring some more usefullness out of them. That's just sick.

[T4 Primera]

Originally Posted by 2strokebloke

I disagree. If my great grandmother's murderer was never brought to justice, should I be able to sue his (the murderers) descendants because of this?
Should Jews sue today's current VW, for being deeply involved with the Nazis more than six decades ago? No, that's rediculous.
So what makes it fair to punish people for something they were not involved in?
I can see from the standpoint that the company profited off of something that is wrong, but at the same time, when they made these profits, it wasn't illegal, by the law they weren't doing anything wrong.
Hell, if we could sue people for violating laws that didn't exist when they commited those crimes, everybody would be a millionaire. So yes, I'm going to take the get over stance. Everybody wants to be a millionaire. Life isn't fair, get over it. I find it saddening, that these people's ancestors had been exploited during their lifetimes, but now well over a century after being dead, people are still finding ways to wring some more usefullness out of them. That's just sick.

You continue to confuse the corporation as an entity with the natural human being as an entity. Let me try to clarify.

If your Great Grandmas murderer was never brought to justice and he is dead then there is nothing to be done. He was a physical person with a limited lifespan. But lets say he stole her fortune and invested it and that investment was still largely intact as a package. Who would you say has a right to that wealth - her descendants? or her murderer's?

If VW could be shown to have 1) been implicit in enabling crimes against humanity and 2) have benefitted financially from this practice, then they can be sued. This is because the wealth gained from such practices is essentially blood money. Would you argue the same standpoint with regard to Nazi fortunes locked away in Swiss bank accounts - that it was long ago and that money is now ok for the decendants of the War criminals to have?

The fundamental difference is in who pays. A corporation is a paperwork person - not a real person. It is this virtual entity that pays. The only real people that lose money are possibly the shareholders but that loss is limited to the amount of their shares. That is what limited liability means - the shareholders are not liable for the actions of the corperation.

So lets say that the court orders a payout. The company pays out or goes bankrupt - whatever - the shareholders may lose their shares or some portion of their value, but they are not held responsible for the actions of the corporations. That is the trade off they made when they bought shares in the company - they put their money at risk and in return are held indemnable beyond the value of their shareholding.

Remember, a corporation has no inherent conscience beyond that which is externally forced upon it. Even the people in control of it are mandated to make profits - not to make moral or ethical decisions beyond those necessary for the furthering of profits. Just look what happened to Henry Ford - he wanted to use re-invest corporate profit into more capacity to create jobs for the people and share the wealth - suffice to say that he lost control of the company at that point.

I think it is entirely appropriate that any "entity" during it's lifespan be held accountable for it's actions whether a real person or a virtual financial construct. Why should a virtual entity be immune to prosecution during it's lifespan when a real person is not.

Maybe this will get peoiple to look more closely at their sharemarket investment beyond the bare-bones profit. The past conduct of a corporation could then be considered as a factor of risk in the investment should a lawsuit ensue.

Indeed, there exists nowadays packages of investments which have been screened for good corporate conduct. These are for investors who accept that a while a company might be slightly less competitive because it refuses to use the dirty tricks, they are not unwittingly funding the forced displacement of some amazonian tribe in the way of a forestry operation or mine.

As for Lloyd's, they made money directly from the slave trade. It's blood money. It was wrong. Whether it was legal is for the courts to decide.

It's sad to think that things may be both wrong and legal at the same time. However, it is cases such as this which continually test the relevance and fairness of legal systems worldwide.

[TexasF355F1]

Okay, my mistake. I do feel pretty stupid with my comment now. I still feel the way I feel though. As far as reading that though, I would never get around to reading it and don't have a huge interest in reading it.

[T4 Primera]

Originally Posted by TexasF355F1

As far as reading that though, I would never get around to reading it and don't have a huge interest in reading it.

Fair enough - life is short (unless you are a corporation in which case it is unlimited).

[2strokebloke]

T4, you still don't seem to be able to grasp that legally they did nothing wrong when they did this. That means that they made their money "fair and square" by the rules of the day.
By today's standards and laws what they did is horrible, but the fact remains that when they made that money, they made it fairly. That money is their money, they earned it.
The actual profits that they made hundreds of years ago, probably don't exist anymore, they're gone!
This case is stupid. So what if they win?, the money goes from a greedy company that did nothing wrong at the time they did it, and into the hands of greedy people and their greedy lawyers. Sound like alot is going to be accomplished.

[T4 Primera]

When legal and right are 2 different things, it's time to take stock. The rules of the day are made by those who hold the power of the day.

I'm sure many of the things that the Nazis did were also "legal" in that they made their own rules as required - states of emergency and martial law cover alot.

Personally, I don't imagine that the plaintiff is as concerned about winning the case as they are about saying to the world:

"This is the history of these companies and the activities upon which they built their foundations. These are the things that companies are capable of if they get powerful enough."

The statement is as relevant to todays world as it ever was. Witness the influence that defence contractors, oil companies and media conglomerates have over society.

Regardless of the outcome, each case tests both the integrity and the interpretation of law against the values of society. This is how law evolves. If it doesn't evolve, the difference between legality and social values grows too large and results in civil unrest.

Call it a legal tune-up.

[2strokebloke]

So, we should sue Ford for selling our grandparents a model T that came without dual airbags, as that violates today's current laws - and my granparents could easily have been injured or killed because of Fords lack of respect for safety in 1920. And they profited by not equipping their cars as such.
And I swear I'd due this, not because I want a million dollars (but that's what I'm asking for) but because... why? Never mind, it is because I want a million dollars. If you believe that they sue, just to make a point about something, then you probably also believe GWB invaded Iraq, because he wanted to save people from Saddam, because Saddam is a big meany. Nobody is going to waste this much time and money, just to try and get a message across.
I find the whole deal pretty silly.

[T4 Primera]

Originally Posted by 2strokebloke

So, we should sue Ford for selling our grandparents a model T that came without dual airbags, as that violates today's current laws - and my granparents could easily have been injured or killed because of Fords lack of respect for safety in 1920. And they profited by not equipping their cars as such.
And I swear I'd due this, not because I want a million dollars (but that's what I'm asking for) but because... why? Never mind, it is because I want a million dollars. If you believe that they sue, just to make a point about something, then you probably also believe GWB invaded Iraq, because he wanted to save people from Saddam, because Saddam is a big meany. Nobody is going to waste this much time and money, just to try and get a message across.
I find the whole deal pretty silly.

Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that no-one that thinks the way you do would make such a stand? No? - then tell me why some people such as doctors and highly trained proffessionals dedicate their lives to help the suffering in the hell-holes of the world when they could easily live in the lap of luxury doing cosmetic surgery and corporate law.

Do you actually know what the prevailing laws, contracts and corporate charters prevailing at the time contained? You speak as if you have an intimate knowledge of the prevailing laws at the time slavery was big business.

If you do, enlighten me, provide a link to the reference material, because I don't know.

If the case is so cut and dry then it will be dismissed at a hearing before it even gets to court. If it does get to court then that means that there is some doubt and hopefully these will be resolved during the case.

BTW, when Henry Ford announced his intention to use Ford Motor Company money to build more factories for the purpose of creating jobs and improving the lives of as many people as possible - his shareholders took him to court and prevented him from doing so. The message to Henry from the Michigan Supreme Courtwas that his job was to make money for the shareholders - not to benefit mankind.

[2strokebloke]

If somebody is going to take their time & their money to say something, they're going to do it about something that is relevant today, such as aids in Africa, or world hunger.
The slave trade, as they are trying to make money from it ended more than 150 years ago. If they wanted to make a statement about slavery, and weren't in it just to make money, then they'd probably have targetted people in Mauritania - who practiced slave ownership up until only about three decades ago.
Unfortunately, I am not very familiar with slavery laws outside of the U.S. All I know is that England had abolished slavery more than a decade before the United States, and that they had outlawed involvement with the slave trade only a couple years after Lloyds had been founded.
I do not believe that Lloyds had participated with the slave traders after it became illegal, had they, they probably would've gotten in trouble, three hundred years ago.
They are also forgetting (as so many choose to do) that these companies were buying (many times) their slaves from black africans, of rival tribes... of course you can't sue a tribe from a third world country, because you won't get a million dollars from them, and chances are, that members of your tribe also captured members of a rival tribe, and sold them into slavery as well. At his point things get weird, because you're suing a company for financing a company that sold slaves, which they bought from people who might have been your own ancestors, but let's not make it that complicated. Of course that's not how it was always done, sometime the leaders would simply trade their own subjects for goods. Slave traders had tried to simply capture people to sell, but they found it was easier to just have the natives sell eachother to them.

[T4 Primera]

Originally Posted by 2strokebloke

If somebody is going to take their time & their money to say something, they're going to do it about something that is relevant today, such as aids in Africa, or world hunger.

The relevance of this case is that it sends a message that an entity cannot expect to outlive responsibility for it's actions.

The relevance is that when slavery ended in 1865 Congress passed a law allowing 40 acres of land to freed slaves to give them the means by which to build a life. One month later that bill was vetoed by President Andrew Jonhnson and remains so to this day. Representative John Conyers from Michigan has tied unsuccessfully for well over a decade to propose $8m be set aside for the study of the effects of slavery and come up with a formula for reparations.

The relevance is that Congress has ignored the issue for nearly 150 years and someone tired of waiting decided to explore other avenues.

The relevance is that people trying to trace their ancestry are continually obstructed access to the necessary information and documents held in corporate records.

The relevance is that people trying to research the amount of money that was made by these companies directly from slave trade profits are similarly obstructed from access to these records.

Originally Posted by 2strokebloke

The slave trade, as they are trying to make money from it ended more than 150 years ago. If they wanted to make a statement about slavery, and weren't in it just to make money, then they'd probably have targetted people in Mauritania - who practiced slave ownership up until only about three decades ago.

The actual lawsuit does not specify a dollar amount beyond "that to be determined by the court". Where that original piece at the start of the thread gets it's 1 million per person from is pure fiction.

Here is a link to the original lawsuit document:
http://news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/sla...t032602cmp.pdf

They may very well have a desire ensure justice in Mauritania, but do they have the legal standing to initiate something there?

Originally Posted by 2strokebloke

Unfortunately, I am not very familiar with slavery laws outside of the U.S. All I know is that England had abolished slavery more than a decade before the United States, and that they had outlawed involvement with the slave trade only a couple years after Lloyds had been founded.
I do not believe that Lloyds had participated with the slave traders after it became illegal, had they, they probably would've gotten in trouble, three hundred years ago.

Lloyds became a company in 1771 although it had been a society since 1688. The British enacted the "Abolition of the Slave Trade Act" in 1807 but it continued anyway. Any British captain caught with slaves on board was fined $100 per slave. Needless to say many were thrown overboard when the threat of imminent capture loomed. In 1827 they redefined slave trading as piracy thus being punishable by death. In 1833 they passed an act to abolish slavery in all British colonies and overseas assets.

Without access to the relevant documents, how can anyone say what they did and did not do and when. This is one of the things that a court case will reveal - assuming the documents still exist or existed in the first place. It's the only way to find out short of all the defendants voluntarily opening up the books.

Lloyds was added as a co-defendant later on in the piece, which indicates that a discovery of some sort had been made. They are not theprincipal defendant in this case as the original article in this thread would have us believe.

Originally Posted by 2strokebloke

They are also forgetting (as so many choose to do) that these companies were buying (many times) their slaves from black africans, of rival tribes... of course you can't sue a tribe from a third world country, because you won't get a million dollars from them, and chances are, that members of your tribe also captured members of a rival tribe, and sold them into slavery as well. At his point things get weird, because you're suing a company for financing a company that sold slaves, which they bought from people who might have been your own ancestors, but let's not make it that complicated. Of course that's not how it was always done, sometime the leaders would simply trade their own subjects for goods. Slave traders had tried to simply capture people to sell, but they found it was easier to just have the natives sell eachother to them.

The thing is, those individuals are long dead whereas the legal entities named as co-defendants are alive and well and flourishing. If the tribal members you mention enjoyed the benefits of unlimited lifespan the way corporations do, then perhaps you'd have a point.

[2strokebloke]

True, people come and die, but the tribe is still the same tribe, it outlives it's individual members. So if we can hold present day owners of a company responsible for something they didn't do, then what's so far fetched about holding a tribe responsible? OH, I keep forgetting, they (unlike a large corporation) wouldn't be able to hand out money if they were taken to court.

[T4 Primera]

Originally Posted by 2strokebloke

True, people come and die, but the tribe is still the same tribe, it outlives it's individual members. So if we can hold present day owners of a company responsible for something they didn't do, then what's so far fetched about holding a tribe responsible? OH, I keep forgetting, they (unlike a large corporation) wouldn't be able to hand out money if they were taken to court.

The present day owners are not being held personally responsible. Neither would the present day tribesmen. It is the legal entity that is being charged. Just like if the tribesmen were being charged it would be the tribe as an entity and not a physical person.

The tribe as an institution might be judged guilty, issue an apology and make reparations with what assets the tribe as an institution may own. However the present day tribesmen would not be personally punished beyond that which is invested in the tribe as an institution. It is the same thing with the corporatrion as an institution or legal entity.

How would you prove the complicity of a tribe? Do you think that these people were likely to have left a papertrail? or signed contracts? or kept records? I'm not saying it didn't happen - just that proving it in court is not feasable.

So, you are saying that they are only suing the corporations because they are rich and that is dishonorable? Does that also mean that in order for the lawsuit to be based on honorable intentions - only the poor should be sued?

The charge is levelled against a legal entity - not a person, although I conceed that the present day shareholders may suffer financially.

However, I believe that if you invest in a company that has committed crimes in the past then it is part of the risk you take that the company might have to answer for it's actions.

For example, if you invested in an oil company that had caused an environmental disaster that hadn't been settled , you couldn't really complain that your shares devalued as a result of a court decision forcing the oil company to make reparations or remedies.

How else is a company to be held accountable for any adverse effects of it's actions? A corporation has only two inherent purposes - to profit and to grow. If the shareholders or investors do not provide a conscience indirectly, by evaluating the risk based on the conduct of the corporation, then the only other way to do it is by government regulation of it's activities. Add to that government prosecution where regulations are breached.

Deadria Farmer-Paellmann, having tired of waiting for Congress to resolve the issue, was inspired to file this lawsuit by the success of similar lawsuits against Volkswagen, Siemens, Deutsche Bank and Daimler Chrysler for Nazi-era slave labour.

If you were to publicly voice your opposition to any of those lawsuits, you would be labelled as anti-semetic before you could finish the sentence.

Lastly, addressing the time elapsed between crime and lawsuit, at which point in time did the slaves or their descendants find themselves sufficiently empowered to launch a legal challenge against their alledged perpetrators?

Having waited for almost 150 years for Congress to deliver the reparations which were halted by Presidential Veto, they finally find themselves sufficiently empowered to force the issue.

One more thing, the Plaintiff also consists of an entity, with any settlements to be directed into a humanitarian trust fund.